A $12 billion company. A humble employee. And a confession he never should have signed. Frank works hard, lives paycheck to paycheck — but when his own employer accuses him of stealing 400 pairs of running shoes, his wages are suddenly garnished to cover "retail value" he can't even afford. The catch? Frank never stole anything. He was held in a room for seven hours without a break, told he'd be fired if he didn't confess, and pressured into signing a paper that's now being used to bleed him dry. When the arbitration hearing begins, the giant's lawyers are confident, the arbitrator is impatient, and justice seems to be a foregone conclusion. But his lawyer isn't giving up. One by one, she tears apart the company's case — the confession, the forced questioning, the unlawful confinement — until the whole process is pushed to its breaking point. And when they run out of options, she delivers the line that changes everything: "Then we'll see you in court." A David-versus-Goliath courtroom battle that will make you angry, then cheer. What would you do if your employer forced you to confess?
ADVERTISEMENT
If you really stole that much, they wouldn't "garnish" your wage. They would call the cops and fire you. They are clearly trying to scam employees
That judge was totally paid off
So the name "Friedman method" stood out to me. What they're referring to is the Reid Technique, an outdated method of interrogation literally criticized for it's high rate of eliciting false confessions. It's literally not a "this confession is real" defense, it's a "I didn't break any rules getting this confession" defense.
If the employee was a thief why would the company continue to keep him?
He signed it under duress, making the original contract void, right? I know it’s hard to prove in court, but still
he admits he is trained in a method of questioning to force a confession after 7 hours of what amounts to an interrogation "sign or you are fired" then keeps said thief on their payroll but takes 50% of his wages amounting to the retail amount for shoes that were never sold and were up charged for profit? im sorry but sounds to me like embezzlement was happening nothing shown here tells me that they did not just keep the shoes claim he stole them and are now pocketing his garnished wage
That's called false imprisonment.. The arbitrator knows that.. Edit: I was actually getting irritated wondering if they were going to bring up the false imprisonment.. I don't know how that was the last thing they clung to when it should be been the very first issue brought up. False Imprisonment, Intimidation, Coercion and countless violations of constitutional and human rights. They must have loaded this arbitrators/judges pockets..
This TV show is called 'The Good Fight'. This scene if from episode 2 season 1. This short peaked my interest, but didn't say the source in the description which should be standard so I've returned to bless anyone who's interested.
"Please state the nature of the arbitrational emergency"
So Ygritte was a lawyer before joining the free folk
"You know nothing, Judge Snow."
remember arbitration the judge guy is hired by the company, if they dont side with them 99% of the them, they wont hire him anymore. so he's inclined to agree with them most of the time
The most aggressive “I believe it was my turn” o have ever heard
They go to court, was offered $500,000 settlement which they rejected, then promptly lost the trial. Thank me.
Context: there is a seminar that teaches managers to force confessions and use methods that combatants of war use to get information or false confessions
My last job stole over $40k of my wages. These people need to be UNDER the prison.
series is called the good fight
The good fight The conclusion of the case was the company lawyers revealed frank stole from a previous company and the judge dismissed the case.
PARAGRAPH GUY! ASAP!
What is the Doctor doing here?